Here's how the Washington Post "Supports the Military" - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ubertuber · 02-02-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Just a quick question, had he made the point clear, would the cartoon still achieve the purpose to bring out thought and debate?

I think so - and in my opinion only, the inflammatory image would be a lot more defensible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Will, I think the answer to your question is also the source "event" of the political cartoonist. Recently, Rumsfeld pronounced the military in great shape even though a recently published Pentagon report and a commander in Iraq said otherwise.

Elphaba, you might very well be correct. However, I'd like to take them at face value when they write "we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices."

Regarding the original post and thread title: I don't actually think it is the Washington Post's job to "support the troops". In my opinion, supporting the troops is a good and admirable thing to do, but the Washington Post's job is to sell papers. They probably feel that they can do that best by supporting their readers' exposure to diverse points of view. Or maybe they do hate the troops - but that is immaterial. There is no obligation to voice only support for our armed forces. Such a duty would be onerous and repugnant. Support them because they deserve it, not because you have to.

maximusveritas · 02-02-2006, 03:38 PM

Sounds like another made-up controversy to me. I didn't really find the cartoon all that funny, but I'm not offended by it either and I've worked with and been friends with countless seriously-injured veterans. I'm personally more outraged at the people who put them in that position than at some cartoonist depicting them in a cartoon.

Elphaba · 02-02-2006, 04:11 PM

I am adding a link covering the dispute between Rumsfeld and the Pentagon report for anyone interested. I apologize, if this constitutes a threadjack.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/military.studies/

Halx · 02-02-2006, 04:37 PM

These days, you'd find it hard to live your life without benefitting any cause that you dont particularly agree with. With that in mind, I find reactions such as the original post to be amusing from an observer's standpoint. Why get so riled up? If you spend your time reacting to all that's revolting and unsavory, you're gonna start looking like nothing more than an attention seeker.

Come to think of it, like 90% of the political 'news' today is reactionary. Hmm.. this deserves a post on it's own.

shakran · 02-02-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

These days, you'd find it hard to live your life without benefitting any cause that you dont particularly agree with. With that in mind, I find reactions such as the original post to be amusing from an observer's standpoint. Why get so riled up? If you spend your time reacting to all that's revolting and unsavory, you're gonna start looking like nothing more than an attention seeker.

Come to think of it, like 90% of the political 'news' today is reactionary. Hmm.. this deserves a post on it's own.

Not only that, but the irony of accusing a cartoonist of "not supporting the military" because he's pointing out how horrendously abused the military is. . .well, that's just. . .ironic.

Sometimes it seems that people are just looking for things to get pissed off about.

Halx · 02-02-2006, 05:35 PM

I agree. Look at me, I'm angry and passionate! ...and I overlook a lot of things!

Elphaba · 02-02-2006, 05:37 PM

The Washington Post and Toles have commented:

Truth Out Link

Quote:

Joint Chiefs Fire At Toles Cartoon on Strained Army
By Howard Kurtz
The Washington Post

Thursday 02 February 2006

In a protest with an unusual number of high-level signatures, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and each of its five members have fired off a letter assailing a Washington Post cartoon as "beyond tasteless."

The Tom Toles cartoon, published Sunday, depicts a heavily bandaged soldier in a hospital bed as having lost his arms and legs, while Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in the guise of a doctor, says: "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.' " Toles said he meant no offense toward American soldiers.

The letter to The Post, signed by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the vice chairman and the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, said: "We believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds ...

"While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices." The letter, which a reporter obtained from the Pentagon, is being published today.

The cartoon is based on remarks that Rumsfeld made last week. In rejecting warnings by a Pentagon-sponsored study that the Iraq war risks "breaking" the Army, he said the US military is "battle hardened" and an "enormously capable force." At the bottom of the cartoon, in smaller type, Rumsfeld says: "I'm prescribing that you be stretched thin. We don't define that as torture."

In an interview, Toles called the letter "an understandable response" but said he did not regret what he drew. In thinking about Rumsfeld's remarks, he said, "what came soon to mind was the catastrophic level of injuries the Army and members of the armed services have sustained ... I thought my portrayal of it was a fair depiction of the reality of the situation.

"I certainly never intended it to be in any way a personal attack on, or a derogatory comment on, the service or sacrifice of American soldiers."

As for the Joint Chiefs' letter, he said: "I think it's a little bit unfair in their reading of the cartoon to imply that is what it's about."

Fred Hiatt, The Post's editorial page editor, said he doesn't "censor Tom" and that "a cartoonist works best if he or she doesn't feel there's someone breathing over their shoulder. He's an independent actor, like our columnists." Hiatt said he makes comments on drafts of cartoons but that Toles is free to ignore them.

Asked about Sunday's cartoon, Hiatt said, "While I certainly can understand the strong feelings, I took it to be a cartoon about the state of the Army and not one intended to demean wounded soldiers."

Dave Autry, deputy communications director for Disabled American Veterans, said he was "certainly not" offended by the cartoon.

"It was graphic, no doubt about it," he said. "But it drove home a point, that there are critically ill patients that certainly need to be attended to."

Toles, who won a 1990 Pulitzer Prize for the Buffalo News and joined The Post in 2002, said he expected criticism for drawing the quadruple amputee, as he does for about two-thirds of his efforts.

"It is the nature of cartooning that someone can read an analogy a cartoon uses to mean things other than what was intended," Toles said. "The only way to avoid that problem is to draw cartoons that have no impact."

Elphaba · 02-02-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

The cartoon is based on remarks that Rumsfeld made last week. In rejecting warnings by a Pentagon-sponsored study that the Iraq war risks "breaking" the Army, he said the US military is "battle hardened" and an "enormously capable force." At the bottom of the cartoon, in smaller type, Rumsfeld says: "I'm prescribing that you be stretched thin. We don't define that as torture."

For those that didn't quite catch this phrase in the political cartoon, it is in reference to "the thin green line" that the Pentagon report used to depict our current on-the-ground army troups in Iraq. Green = Army.

Charlatan · 02-02-2006, 06:06 PM

Here's a question: Is it a newspaper's job to "support the military"?

Elphaba · 02-02-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I have a question... why are 4 generals and 2 admirals getting ansey and bothered about a poltical cartoon? Don't they have jobs?

If this topic has any value, it would be to answer Will's question.

Willravel · 02-02-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

If this topic has any value, it would be to answer Will's question.

I appreciate that very much. To elaborate, these men are responsible for soldiers, but they are not responsible for PR. These men should be perfecting strategies, triple checking intel, making sure that our soldiers come back with all their limbs, and protecting our freedoms. Do they really have the free time to write a BS letter to some cartoonist (actually a very talented and critically aclaimed cartoonist)?

shakran · 02-02-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Here's a question: Is it a newspaper's job to "support the military"?

It's a newspaper's job to post opinions in the opinion section. Some of those opinions are in the form of political cartoons. Strangely enough those political cartoonists have opinions, and oftentimes those opinions show in their cartoons. If you don't like the opinion the cartoonist expressed, you are free to draw your own or, should you lack any artistic tallent like I do, you can write a letter to the editor and get your own opinion in the opinion section.

pan6467 · 02-02-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Here's a question: Is it a newspaper's job to "support the military"?

That's a loaded question.

It is their duty to support the troops to a degree that you want to keep battle line morale up.

That said, it is also the media's responsibility to be as honest and to report what they are seeing to us so that we know the "truth". But the truth has become obscured because the press on both sides have their agendas.

The problem is you have this heavy partisan split and for the past few years the media being just whacked in every turn. So you have people believing what they want to hear and read and not really delving into the truth.

So when one news source states "A" is happening, the other side has to retaliate and say "B" is happening and "A" is just bias and lies.

ubertuber · 02-02-2006, 06:40 PM

I was early with this, so I'm going to quote myself:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Regarding the original post and thread title: I don't actually think it is the Washington Post's job to "support the troops". In my opinion, supporting the troops is a good and admirable thing to do, but the Washington Post's job is to sell papers. They probably feel that they can do that best by supporting their readers' exposure to diverse points of view. Or maybe they do hate the troops - but that is immaterial. There is no obligation to voice only support for our armed forces. Such a duty would be onerous and repugnant. Support them because they deserve it, not because you have to.

shakran · 02-02-2006, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That's a loaded question.

It is their duty to support the troops to a degree that you want to keep battle line morale up. -

Actually, that's wrong. It's not their duty. Journalistic operations do not have a duty to support ANYTHING except the truth (and many of them kinda forget to support that too).

Quote:

That said, it is also the media's responsibility to be as honest and to report what they are seeing to us so that we know the "truth". But the truth has become obscured because the press on both sides have their agendas.

True. And that's where the question was really loaded. Because that editorial cartoon DOES support the troops. The neocons might tell you that pointing out the fact that our troops are being abused by the military high command and the whitehouse is failing to support them, but in fact pointing out the wrongs dished out to the troops IS supporting the troops.

Quote:

The problem is you have this heavy partisan split and for the past few years the media being just whacked in every turn. So you have people believing what they want to hear and read and not really delving into the truth.

Bingo. And that's exacerbated by the fact that the media cannot report the truth if it's negative without someone accusing the media of being biased.

pan6467 · 02-02-2006, 06:59 PM

Shakran,

I don't know I think on the front lines our troops don't need to hear trivial BS like Sheehan getting arrested and then appologized to. Or about the division between philosophies and parties.

Maybe it's just my belief but if I were a reporter on the lines the last thing I would want to do is report anything to the men that would lower their morale. This could lead to men feeling apathetic and getting killed.

On the other hand, I also understand that the men deserve to know what is happening back home and what is going on as far as politically because it affects them also. They deserve the truth.

Man, that is a very tough question, I am glad I am not a reporter who has to be over there, because I want to believe I'd do "A" but "B" does have it's merits. That is a call too hard for me to make. Thank God, I don't have to make the call.

trickyy · 02-02-2006, 06:59 PM

cartoons are really pissing people off this week
it's beginning to get silly

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...oon/index.html

Quote:

Gunmen shut down the European Union's office Thursday in Gaza City, Palestinian security sources said, in an escalating controversy over newspapers that ran cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.
...
CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam.

don't want to steer the post away from the original topic, i just think it is possible to take cartoons too seriously (regardless of your deeply-held beliefs).

(discussion on this particular issue here -- http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=100630 )

pan6467 · 02-02-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

The caricatures have sparked protests in other parts of the Muslim world. Iraqis urged their government Wednesday to cut diplomatic ties with Denmark and Norway, where a publication reprinted the drawings last month. (Full story)

So much for political freedom in Iraq.

shakran · 02-02-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Shakran,

I don't know I think on the front lines our troops don't need to hear trivial BS like Sheehan getting arrested and then appologized to. Or about the division between philosophies and parties.

Maybe it's just my belief but if I were a reporter on the lines the last thing I would want to do is report anything to the men that would lower their morale. This could lead to men feeling apathetic and getting killed.

On the other hand, I also understand that the men deserve to know what is happening back home and what is going on as far as politically because it affects them also. They deserve the truth.

Man, that is a very tough question, I am glad I am not a reporter who has to be over there, because I want to believe I'd do "A" but "B" does have it's merits. That is a call too hard for me to make. Thank God, I don't have to make the call.

First off you gotta realize that unless they read it online, the troops aren't reading the washington post. At least, not anywhere close to the publication date.

As a reporter on the front lines, the only concession to the truth you should be making is in not reporting something that could cause actual harm to the troops - i.e. Geraldo the Moron mapping out where his unit was for all the Iraqis to see. But suppressing the truth to try and protect troop morale - - it'd have to be pretty inconsequential truth to do that. I'm not gonna run a story about the soldier who's cheating on his wife, but if the troops I'm stationed with aren't getting the supplies they need to be as safe as possible and fight as effectively as possible, then you're bloody right I'm gonna report it, and I'm gonna report it until the situation changes.

The troops' collective morale isn't gonna be hurt by me saying they're stretched too thin, or they don't have good body armor. They already KNOW that. Their morale sucks because the sons'a bitches that sent them over there didn't give them the numbers or equipment they needed. Their morale sucks because they're stationed over there far longer than they're supposed to be. Blaming the messenger for troop morale is stupid. Let's instead blame the guys at the top who are responsible for putting the troops in this demoralizing position.

pan6467 · 02-02-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

First off you gotta realize that unless they read it online, the troops aren't reading the washington post. At least, not anywhere close to the publication date.

As a reporter on the front lines, the only concession to the truth you should be making is in not reporting something that could cause actual harm to the troops - i.e. Geraldo the Moron mapping out where his unit was for all the Iraqis to see. But suppressing the truth to try and protect troop morale - - it'd have to be pretty inconsequential truth to do that. I'm not gonna run a story about the soldier who's cheating on his wife, but if the troops I'm stationed with aren't getting the supplies they need to be as safe as possible and fight as effectively as possible, then you're bloody right I'm gonna report it, and I'm gonna report it until the situation changes.

The troops' collective morale isn't gonna be hurt by me saying they're stretched too thin, or they don't have good body armor. They already KNOW that. Their morale sucks because the sons'a bitches that sent them over there didn't give them the numbers or equipment they needed. Their morale sucks because they're stationed over there far longer than they're supposed to be. Blaming the messenger for troop morale is stupid. Let's instead blame the guys at the top who are responsible for putting the troops in this demoralizing position.

That is why you are in the profession you are in and I'm not. It's also a reason I respect you because you have the judgement and seem to be able to make the calls, and with good rationalizations, I couldn't.

filtherton · 02-02-2006, 07:29 PM

Since when do generals know anything about how to draw political cartoons? Maybe they should hold their tongues concerning things that they aren't experts on.

ubertuber · 02-02-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Since when do generals know anything about how to draw political cartoons? Maybe they should hold their tongues concerning things that they aren't experts on.

Unfortunately, by that logic none of us are qualified to weigh in on the war... Or was that your sarcastic point?

Elphaba · 02-02-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Since when do generals know anything about how to draw political cartoons? Maybe they should hold their tongues concerning things that they aren't experts on.

And since when did they collectively choose to attack one particular political cartoon? I don't recall it ever happening before. So, back to Will's question.

Why?

My opinion, given this specific instance, is that Rumsfeld needed to counter a specific attack to his version of military strength. Perhaps it was easier to attack the media and a political cartoonist, than the report from within his own department. Distraction and denial is nothing new to this administration, nor in Rummy's previous government appointments.

Ustwo · 02-02-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Tweeeeet!
Flag on the play.
Who is going back to war...missing limbs? They may believe in the war. Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that they received excellent care from the VA (wouldn't happen in Omaha, but I'll bite). But noone, that is missing a limb(s), is going back to war. If they are, then our military is stretched far thinner than I ever imagined.

Upon further review the ruling on the field is overturned.

Quote:

Amputee Wounded in Iraq to Return to Active Duty

Morning Edition, March 4, 2005 · Capt. David Rozelle of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment will soon become the Army's first amputee from a wound suffered in Iraq to return to active duty.

In the past, it's been rare for soldiers who underwent amputations to go back to war, but better prosthetic arms and legs are now allowing wounded soldiers to do more.

At Fort Carson in Colorado, Rozelle said he knows he's returning both as a fighter and as a role model -- for the soldiers under his command and for other troops with amputations.

"I'm breaking the ice for them," Rozelle says. "I don't want to be an anomaly. I want to be the first to go back. But I don't want to be the last."

Rozelle was injured in June 2003, when an anti-tank mine destroyed part of his right foot and leg. He recounts the experience in a new memoir, Back in Action: An American Soldier's Story of Courage, Faith, and Fortitude. The book's first chapter is excerpted below.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4522136

Link for the full story.

Elphaba · 02-02-2006, 08:05 PM

Uh, ok. Back to the political cartoon?

Edit with the hope of keeping this threadjack from continuing:

Quote:

ROZELLE: I'd won. They found me fit for duty. I'd proven to a board of doctors and the Army, the Department of Defense that I was -- I was fit for duty. OK, now what? That was my goal was to be found fit for duty. It wasn't to go back to Iraq. It's never been my goal is go back to Iraq. It's been to be able to have the ability to take command again. That's all I wanted. So, now I had to make a decision.

He's selling a book, too.

Halx · 02-03-2006, 02:57 PM

What I'd like to see in a public statement is this: "I apologize that my political cartoon's meaning flew way over your head. Please do not bother me or my publisher until you have fully understood the signifigance of my work. Until then, might I suggest Family Circus or Marmaduke until your comic comprehension is up to par."

I think a statement like that woulda won the admiration of just about every intelligent person on this planet. And after all, isn't that the only thing that matters?

Marvelous Marv · 02-03-2006, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

These days, you'd find it hard to live your life without benefitting any cause that you dont particularly agree with. With that in mind, I find reactions such as the original post to be amusing from an observer's standpoint. Why get so riled up? If you spend your time reacting to all that's revolting and unsavory, you're gonna start looking like nothing more than an attention seeker.

Come to think of it, like 90% of the political 'news' today is reactionary. Hmm.. this deserves a post on it's own.

Some here aren't old enough to remember all the flak that Ross Perot caught for referring to a black audience as "you people."

But congratulations--you just put Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton out of business.

docbungle · 02-03-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

What I'd like to see in a public statement is this: "I apologize that my political cartoon's meaning flew way over your head. Please do not bother me or my publisher until you have fully understood the signifigance of my work. Until then, might I suggest Family Circus or Marmaduke until your comic comprehension is up to par."

I think a statement like that woulda won the admiration of just about every intelligent person on this planet. And after all, isn't that the only thing that matters?

You hit the nail on the head right there. Political types seem to paint everything in a very black or white sort of way: Its either this or its that. It can't be anything else. There is no critical thought put into their responses. It is simply a reactionary machine doing what it is programmed to do.

Marvelous Marv · 02-03-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I appreciate that very much. To elaborate, these men are responsible for soldiers, but they are not responsible for PR. These men should be perfecting strategies, triple checking intel, making sure that our soldiers come back with all their limbs, and protecting our freedoms. Do they really have the free time to write a BS letter to some cartoonist (actually a very talented and critically aclaimed cartoonist)?

Maintaining morale is one of the most important jobs of any military leader.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Maybe they should hold their tongues concerning things that they aren't experts on.

If only everyone subscribed to that general philosophy.

Willravel · 02-03-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Maintaining morale is one of the most important jobs of any military leader.

So this cartoon is why morale is so low in the military? Of all the things these military leaders can do to help morale, they write a cartoonist? Oh Marv, you can't be serious.

Jimellow · 02-03-2006, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So this cartoon is why morale is so low in the military? Of all the things these military leaders can do to help morale, they write a cartoonist? Oh Marv, you can't be serious.

I would think it would help the morale of the troops greatly to see their leaders defending them and the war they are fighting for, by opposing cartoons in mass media that could be considered in poor taste, even mocking their efforts and resulting injuries.

It takes 5 seconds or less to sign a letter, but for troops to see that signature in defense of them and their cause would certainly make that 5 seconds of effort worthwhile.

Furthermore, if I was a soldier in a foreign land and saw such a cartoon, and no response from my leaders, I think that would be a great concern. There is more to leadership than just issuing orders and organizing training drills.

shakran · 02-03-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

I would think it would help the morale of the troops greatly to see their leaders defending them and the war they are fighting for, by opposing cartoons in mass media that could be considered in poor taste, even mocking their efforts and resulting injuries.

Well. . yeah, i suppose it would help morale to see that. Unfortunately, the troops didn't see that in this case. See, the cartoon was not mocking their efforts and resulting injuries. It was mocking Rumsfeld for expecting people to fall for his "the military is fine even though it's stretched beyond thin and we're not bothering to equip them properly" bullshit.

The cartoon is pointing out the fact that the military is being flagrantly abused. The cartoon is SUPPORTING the military because it's trying to change the fact that the military is being abused.

Willravel · 02-03-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

I would think it would help the morale of the troops greatly to see their leaders defending them and the war they are fighting for, by opposing cartoons in mass media that could be considered in poor taste, even mocking their efforts and resulting injuries.

Mocking? Did you see the cartoon? The cartoon is honoring the sacrafice of the soldier, while trying to communicate that Donald Rumsfeld is the one showing the troops - who have sacraficed - disrespect. You're misunderstanding th cartoon just as these 4 enerals and 2 admirals have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

It takes 5 seconds or less to sign a letter, but for troops to see that signature in defense of them and their cause would certainly make that 5 seconds of effort worthwhile.

All these gernerals and admirals have done is show that they will back up the Bush administration no matter what...and that is the very thing that has the troops morale down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

Furthermore, if I was a soldier in a foreign land and saw such a cartoon, and no response from my leaders, I think that would be a great concern. There is more to leadership than just issuing orders and organizing training drills.

You don't understand the cartoon. If I were to see a cartoon, misunderstand it and be offended by it, who's fault is that? Is it the cartoonists? Nope. It's mine for not thinking about it. Political cartoons are supposed to make you think.

pan6467 · 02-03-2006, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Well. . yeah, i suppose it would help morale to see that. Unfortunately, the troops didn't see that in this case. See, the cartoon was not mocking their efforts and resulting injuries. It was mocking Rumsfeld for expecting people to fall for his "the military is fine even though it's stretched beyond thin and we're not bothering to equip them properly" bullshit.

The cartoon is pointing out the fact that the military is being flagrantly abused. The cartoon is SUPPORTING the military because it's trying to change the fact that the military is being abused.

You point out how the military and vets are being treated badly and all the Right does is accuse you of being against the war and the troops. It's pointless arguing with them because all they fucking care about is their tax cuts...... if they truly cared about the war or the military they wouldn't want tax cuts until after the war.

*PS See my Voinovich post where he says the same thing...... go figure a GOP senator speaking out.

Jimellow · 02-03-2006, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Mocking? Did you see the cartoon? The cartoon is honoring the sacrafice of the soldier, while trying to communicate that Donald Rumsfeld is the one showing the troops - who have sacraficed - disrespect. You're misunderstanding th cartoon just as these 4 enerals and 2 admirals have.

All these gernerals and admirals have done is show that they will back up the Bush administration no matter what...and that is the very thing that has the troops morale down.

You don't understand the cartoon. If I were to see a cartoon, misunderstand it and be offended by it, who's fault is that? Is it the cartoonists? Nope. It's mine for not thinking about it. Political cartoons are supposed to make you think.

How can you be sure you are interpreting the cartoon correctly? Is there only one interpretation that is "right"?

To me, the cartoon is showing a doctor, in this case Rumsfield, making glib of the soldiers injuries and sacrifices.

Regardless of who is making glib of the situation, I think it is important for the leaders of those being disrespected to back up their men. A letter signed by them shows that they disapprove of the cartoon and its attempt at lessening the importance of what these soldiers are sacrificing in the process of serving their country.

George Bush could be the man in the suit, and the letter would still be justified. The leaders that sign the letter likely have more connection with their troops than George Bush or Donald Rumsfield, and thus they are 100% justified in writing a letter to show the troops that they have their back. That is what leaders do. To not write a letter and just sit idly as others sling disrespect and mockery, regardless of medium, would be concerning to me.

Is the cartoonist justified in creating and publishing such art? Absolutely, but a response from those leading the men featured in such cartoons are also fully justified in sending signed letters expressing their disapproval.

Willravel · 02-03-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

How can you be sure you are interpreting the cartoon correctly? Is there only one interpretation that is "right"?

Because you're interpretation doesn't make sense. How is that disrespecting the soldiers? Showing them injured? I can give you the number of one of my best friends who lost his leg and he can explain to you how true it is. People are getting hurt and are losing their lives. Any sugar coating and sheltering from that is simply sheltering one's self from reality. It's not disrespectful to show reality. The disrespect is towards Donny Rummy, the man who insists that things are going well, all along sending people back and extending tours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

To me, the cartoon is showing a doctor, in this case Rumsfield, making glib of the soldiers injuries and sacrifices.

Can you elaborate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

Regardless of who is making glib of the situation, I think it is important for the leaders of those being disrespected to back up their men. A letter signed by them shows that they disapprove of the cartoon and its attempt at lessening the importance of what these soldiers are sacrificing in the process of serving their country.

Again, the soldier is not being disrespected. Read the response from the man who illustrated this one page one of this thread if I can't convince you. These men, generals and admirals, are protecting Rummy, not the soldiers. If they were interested in protecting the soldiers, they'd be doing EVERYTHING THEY COULD to get them home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

George Bush could be the man in the suit, and the letter would still be justified. The leaders that sign the letter likely have more connection with their troops than George Bush or Donald Rumsfield, and thus they are 100% justified in writing a letter to show the troops that they have their back. That is what leaders do. To not write a letter and just sit idly as others sling disrespect and mockery, regardless of medium, would be concerning to me.

They are justified for nothing. The are pawns in military uniforms. It is not the job of a general or an admiral to protect the image of Rummy. It is their jobs to protect the soldiers from injuries and death. Let the idiot PR people at the white house protect Rummy or Bush or Coldaliesalot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

Is the cartoonist justified in creating and publishing such art? Absolutely, but a response from those leading the men featured in such cartoons are also fully justified in sending signed letters expressing their disapproval.

This isn't about justification. This is about job descriptions. Admirals and generals have jobs to do, and that does not include bullshitting for the current administration.

Jimellow · 02-03-2006, 11:46 PM

My take on the cartoon is: Someone (in this case, Rumsfield) is belittling the wounded soldier's fresh injuries. Furthermore, it is making light of the entire situation by having Rummy make a witty and weak comment in regards to someone that has literally sacrificed life and limb to serve his country.

The soldier is being disrepected by Rummy, but the cartoon is disrespecting everyone involved IMO. The cartoon seems inappropriate to me. Generally, I am not a fan of using injured troops as a means for political satire, jokes, and comic strips, even if they are intended to be portrayed in a good light; which I still don't think they are in this case.

The cartoon pisses me off primarily because Rummy is belittling the injured soldier, but it also pisses me off because a recently injured soldier is the means through which a cartoonist is trying to send his message. There may be nothing wrong with that, but it bothers me. I guess I am not big on seeing people that sacrifice so much only being represented when they are in bandages and disabled.

I will admit I may be wrong about the letter, and that logic would dictate the writers are writing more for the defense of Rumsfield, than the soldier portrayed, but I also have trouble accepting the fact that they are heartless bastards that take no issue with their soldiers being featured/represnted in cartoons in such a injured condition.

pan6467 · 02-04-2006, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

I will admit I may be wrong about the letter, and that logic would dictate the writers are writing more for the defense of Rumsfield, than the soldier portrayed, but I also have trouble accepting the fact that they are heartless bastards that take no issue with their soldiers being featured/represnted in cartoons in such a injured condition.

I can agree with this. I don't know the Joint Chiefs pasts, but in most cases they have risen up through the ranks and my experience in the military is that the officers that truly cared for their men and did their best to treat their men with the utmost respect, were the ones who advanced faster and farther than those who treated the men like shit and tried to buck for a promotion.

GOod example of this is my Suppo who treated us like shit on the ship, he was stuck at Lt. for a few years and forced to resign at that level because he would never advance. He was fucking scum of the Earth and I would never do shit for that man unless ordered to. He was a piece of shit slimeball and deserved his fate.

Yet, the ship's XO (Executive Officer) was the most fair, decent and respectful man I ever met in the Navy (and was one of the most influential, greatest men I have met in any period of my life) and he advanced quite well and quite far. I will always have the greatest respect for that man, and would have followed him anywhere and known that in times of crisis he'd put his life down for any single man on that ship.

Willravel · 02-04-2006, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

My take on the cartoon is: Someone (in this case, Rumsfield) is belittling the wounded soldier's fresh injuries. Furthermore, it is making light of the entire situation by having Rummy make a witty and weak comment in regards to someone that has literally sacrificed life and limb to serve his country.

In the cartoon there is a villan and a brave victim. Depicting one as a brave victim usually doesn't imply disrespect. The cartoonist specifically said, "I certainly never intended it to be in any way a personal attack on, or a derogatory comment on, the service or sacrifice of American soldiers." That's extremly clear. The intent was not to make light of the soldiers situation, in fact it was to bring the sad situation to light so that these solderis can recieve the respect they deserve for their sacrafice(s).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

The soldier is being disrepected by Rummy, but the cartoon is disrespecting everyone involved IMO. The cartoon seems inappropriate to me. Generally, I am not a fan of using injured troops as a means for political satire, jokes, and comic strips, even if they are intended to be portrayed in a good light; which I still don't think they are in this case.

A ha. The solder is being disrespected by Rummy, and that's the point. Many people still don't realze that the top officials in the executive branch spit out nothing but lies. When Rumsfeld explains how we are winning the war and when Bush says "bring em on" to the terrorists, some people cheer without thinking. This is more than satire. The ficticious injured solder is a tool for communication...communication of information and opinion that would be benificial for those who don't grasp the full scope of this war and the effect on the soldiers. The American media refuses to show American soldiers coming back from Iraq in caskets. We see soldiers run into homes or driving along long, dusty roads. Only in fairly liberal or grass roots media that we can begin to fully understand the extent of pain and misery steming from the second gulf war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

The cartoon pisses me off primarily because Rummy is belittling the injured soldier, but it also pisses me off because a recently injured soldier is the means through which a cartoonist is trying to send his message. There may be nothing wrong with that, but it bothers me. I guess I am not big on seeing people that sacrifice so much only being represented when they are in bandages and disabled.

You should be pissed at Rumsfeld, that's what the cartoon is all about. "Rumsfeld is bad, and here's why..." This is hardly the only representation of soldiers in American media. This, however tells a diffferent story than we are used to. Not all soldiers are safe. Not all soldiers are kids that will come home as heros and get back to their lives. Some soldiers hate the war, even.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

I will admit I may be wrong about the letter, and that logic would dictate the writers are writing more for the defense of Rumsfield, than the soldier portrayed, but I also have trouble accepting the fact that they are heartless bastards that take no issue with their soldiers being featured/represnted in cartoons in such a injured condition.

This solder represents a group that is underrepresented in media. I won't presume to tell you how to emotionally respond to something, but I'd like for you to consider that the intent of the cartoon was to respect the soldier.

Halx · 02-04-2006, 02:02 AM

Why oh why are you getting so worked up over someone's opinion? WHY?!!?

02-02-2006, 04:37 PM	#44 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	These days, you'd find it hard to live your life without benefitting any cause that you dont particularly agree with. With that in mind, I find reactions such as the original post to be amusing from an observer's standpoint. Why get so riled up? If you spend your time reacting to all that's revolting and unsavory, you're gonna start looking like nothing more than an attention seeker. Come to think of it, like 90% of the political 'news' today is reactionary. Hmm.. this deserves a post on it's own. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

02-02-2006, 05:35 PM	#46 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	I agree. Look at me, I'm angry and passionate! ...and I overlook a lot of things! __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

02-02-2006, 06:06 PM	#49 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Here's a question: Is it a newspaper's job to "support the military"? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-02-2006, 06:59 PM	#56 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Shakran, I don't know I think on the front lines our troops don't need to hear trivial BS like Sheehan getting arrested and then appologized to. Or about the division between philosophies and parties. Maybe it's just my belief but if I were a reporter on the lines the last thing I would want to do is report anything to the men that would lower their morale. This could lead to men feeling apathetic and getting killed. On the other hand, I also understand that the men deserve to know what is happening back home and what is going on as far as politically because it affects them also. They deserve the truth. Man, that is a very tough question, I am glad I am not a reporter who has to be over there, because I want to believe I'd do "A" but "B" does have it's merits. That is a call too hard for me to make. Thank God, I don't have to make the call. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-03-2006, 02:57 PM	#66 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	What I'd like to see in a public statement is this: "I apologize that my political cartoon's meaning flew way over your head. Please do not bother me or my publisher until you have fully understood the signifigance of my work. Until then, might I suggest Family Circus or Marmaduke until your comic comprehension is up to par." I think a statement like that woulda won the admiration of just about every intelligent person on this planet. And after all, isn't that the only thing that matters? __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

02-02-2006, 03:38 PM	#42 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Sounds like another made-up controversy to me. I didn't really find the cartoon all that funny, but I'm not offended by it either and I've worked with and been friends with countless seriously-injured veterans. I'm personally more outraged at the people who put them in that position than at some cartoonist depicting them in a cartoon.

02-02-2006, 04:11 PM	#43 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I am adding a link covering the dispute between Rumsfeld and the Pentagon report for anyone interested. I apologize, if this constitutes a threadjack. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/military.studies/

02-02-2006, 07:29 PM	#61 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Since when do generals know anything about how to draw political cartoons? Maybe they should hold their tongues concerning things that they aren't experts on.

02-03-2006, 11:46 PM	#77 (permalink)
Jimellow Junkie	My take on the cartoon is: Someone (in this case, Rumsfield) is belittling the wounded soldier's fresh injuries. Furthermore, it is making light of the entire situation by having Rummy make a witty and weak comment in regards to someone that has literally sacrificed life and limb to serve his country. The soldier is being disrepected by Rummy, but the cartoon is disrespecting everyone involved IMO. The cartoon seems inappropriate to me. Generally, I am not a fan of using injured troops as a means for political satire, jokes, and comic strips, even if they are intended to be portrayed in a good light; which I still don't think they are in this case. The cartoon pisses me off primarily because Rummy is belittling the injured soldier, but it also pisses me off because a recently injured soldier is the means through which a cartoonist is trying to send his message. There may be nothing wrong with that, but it bothers me. I guess I am not big on seeing people that sacrifice so much only being represented when they are in bandages and disabled. I will admit I may be wrong about the letter, and that logic would dictate the writers are writing more for the defense of Rumsfield, than the soldier portrayed, but I also have trouble accepting the fact that they are heartless bastards that take no issue with their soldiers being featured/represnted in cartoons in such a injured condition. __________________ Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

02-04-2006, 02:02 AM	#80 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Why oh why are you getting so worked up over someone's opinion? WHY?!!? __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]